


The issue with the Houses of Hogwarts

by orphan_account



Category: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling
Genre: Essays, Gen, Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, Slytherin
Language: English
Status: In-Progress
Published: 2013-07-31
Updated: 2013-07-31
Packaged: 2017-12-21 23:23:48
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,098
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/906168
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/orphan_account/pseuds/orphan_account
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>One of the many gripes I have with harry Potter is the houses and how JK Rowling would tell us in the books there are characters that contradict the stereotypes of their house, but she never shows and or she doesn't give a good explanation for these actions.</p>
            </blockquote>





	The issue with the Houses of Hogwarts

**Author's Note:**

> I do not hate the Harry Potter Franchise  
> This is horribly long, far to long for anyone to bother read, and I apologize for that. I also want to say that I am typing this from memory. I have refused to pick up any of the Harry Potter books again because of the Deathly Hallows. I have also not seen Part One of the DH and I have only watched Part Two and the Half Blood Prince once. I also know this is highly cynical, but this is my point of view.  
> This will be split up in three parts simply because how long this essay will turn out to be.

One of the many gripes I have with harry Potter is the houses and how JK Rowling would tell us in the books there are characters that contradict the stereotypes of their house, but she never shows and or she doesn’t give a good explanation for these actions. In interviews she would go into more ‘depth’ and is completely at odds that she shows in canon. Three out of the four houses produce characters that fit their stereotype, only Ravenclaw House can claim actual diversity while the characters of Hufflepuff, Gryffindor, and Slytherin fail to break from the pattern that was set up from the first time we read the Sorting Hat and the fandom’s perceived expectations. 

Let’s look at the one house that actually does show characters going against what is to believe the house’s standard. Ravenclaw genuinely doesn’t have a set mold for the characters that belong to it in canon. However it is the only house that the fandom puts a stereotype to; the Know-it-all, bookworm, non-action Hermione Granger identity the fans have put up on the Ravenclaw house is completely against the description we get from the sorting hat. Being wise and loving to learn doesn’t make one a bookworm and the handful of characters of value don’t even show signs of these characteristics. 

The first Ravenclaw that everyone thinks of is Luna Lovegood and the fandom it. Luna is best described as quirky, yet wise, and vastly loyal. She enjoys learning about creatures that may or may not exist, but she doesn’t hold her intelligence nor her knowledge over other characters like a typical bookworm would. And she is even a foil to Hermione, who is the series know-it-all, so we have to scratch that trait off for Luna for the very nature of what a foil is. Cho Chang seems to be more athletic, she worries more about Quidditch, and she is put off by Ron Weasley’s assertion that she is only a fan of the Tutshill Tornados for superficial reasons. There isn’t much in canon to say she is a bookroom, but it can be argued the reason why she is in ravenclaw is because she loves to learn about Quidditch. And as for the current head of the House, Professor Flitwick doesn’t even show signs of the fandom Ravenclaw, nor the generic description that Sorting Hat gives up of the house. To reiterate from before, the stereotype of Ravenclaw that the fans associate with is fandom created and has no bases in canon. The fandom literally is debunking their perceived notions that were not there to begin with. The prominent characters of this house serve a distinct role within canon and do not share the same purpose either, which is more I can say for two well known Hufflepuff characters.

Much like in Ravenclaw, and honestly the other houses, Hufflepuff also has a generic Sorting Hat description, but unlike Ravenclaw that description has some bases in canon. The hat says Hufflepuff is the house of the just, fair-minded, kind-hearted, patient, and the hard working. We can see these traits in Professor Pomona Sprout, Nymphadora Tonks, and Cedric Tonks. Now because of how Hufflepuff characters are written, the fandom has come up with the stereotype that Hufflepuffs are useless, canon fodder, only plot devices, and just weak. And fans are quick to point to Cedric and Nymphadora as if they break the canon and fandom stereotype, not realizing they are reinforcing it instead.

Sprout doesn’t evolve at all as character. She is just there and she is the Hufflepuff House personified. There isn’t much I can discuss about her, I’m not calling her useless persay, but she has little to no impact to the canon and her impression on the story and as character is fairly weak. But, there is still Diggory and Tonks to go over. They aren’t useless, contrary, they are very usefull plot devices and excellent canon fodder. Tonks especially. Yes, I know Tonks was introduced as a badass auror, with a punk rocker style. and bubbly personality. But that was the fifth book. In the sixth book, however that is thrown out the window. She is depressed, her hair is shaggy and brown, her patronus has changed and we are lead to believe its because of her late cousin Sirius Black. But that was a twist, because she actually was pining of over Remus Lupin. How sweet. Tonks, by the end of Prince, has been regulated as a minor plot device to show that Lupin deserves love and a major one so Harry can live out what Sirius could not be; a proper godfather. 

If we look at the only possible timeline of when Teddy Lupin was born, his birth roughly nine months after Tonks and Remus got married - which means that Tonks and Remus knew about the pregnancy right from conception. Right in the middle of a war. This clumsy writing come across if they planned to have a kid, despite Lupin’s desire to not really wanting a kid. I am not saying that people shouldn’t get have families during a war, look at Arthur and Molly Weasley, but not only Tonk, but her entire family is turned into a plot device. it can be argued Diggory is either better or worse off than Tonks, but his death served to darken the story and furthers the idea hanging with Harry isn’t the best of ideas. I know secondary characters are generally used in this way, but it is telling that two prominent hufflepuffs are killed off because the plot requires it. And there is three other Hufflepuffs that show up, but they are also plot devices. Justin Finch-Fletchley was one of the muggleborns that were attack in the second book, he was also the character was the character to reinforced the impression that Harry was attacking everyone. Hannah Abbott had little purpose and just a useless background character throughout the series, but showed to be loyal to her house. However, she gains purpose became Neville’s girlfriend and wife. Jk Rowling used her relationship with Neville most likely to show that not all her relationships were high school sweet hearts, despite it making no sense and it being off screen. Zacharias Smith isn’t a walking stereotype of the Hufflepuff House personality, but that doesn’t stop him from being a plot device and useless. Smith is useless in canon, as he does nothing to help his fellow Hogwarts classmates fight against Death Eaters. as for his plot device status, I will address that more when I discuss Gryffindors.


End file.
